Hi Bert and all, 

I am slow in comparison with the momentum this thread has picked up.
These are responses to a post of Bert's just before the flurry began.

>Bert Freudenberg bert at freudenbergs.de
>Sun Apr 19 11:25:12 UTC 2009
>
>
>On 19.04.2009, at 01:25, Jerome Peace wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Bert and all,
>>
>> Response to Berts replys:
>>http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-April/135551.html
>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-April/135572.html
>>http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-April/135662.html



>>>>> Not so in Linux. Here, building the binary packages that fit into a
>>>>> specific Linux distribution is typically done by users of that  
>>>>> Linux
>>>>> version.
>>>>
>>>> That was not true of the etoys installation from squeakland. It does
>>>> not have to be true for distro's squeak.org supplies.
>>>
>>> Squeakland should provide only Mac and Win installers, and work with
>>> the distros to carry an up-to-date Etoys package.
>>>
>>> Right now there also is an RPM and a DEB package at squeakland, but I
>>> see that as a thing of the past. It already leads to confusion when
>>> people try to combine those packages with the ones from their distro.
>>> The squeakland packages are not even a good model how to package  
>>> Etoys  but more of a hack.
>>>
>> A hack that saves the day is rather welcome IMHO.
>
>IMHO we do have enough hacks already.
>
Hmmm. From where I sit I have a hard time telling what is a hack and what isn't.

It works. Or it doesn't work. I can judge. If I get a close look at it then I can tell you if I think I could write it more elegantly.
But getting close usually means an long investment in time. So its best to do that sparingly.

You are much closer to part of this than I am. So you are seeing the trees which are hackable. I am just trying to deal with the forest.



>> Why do you say it is a thing of the past.
>
>Because having Etoys and Squeak packaged by the distributions is the  
>only sustainable way forward.
>
Only???

>Why do you think we spent so much effort on the relicensing? Because  
>we do want to enjoy the benefits of being part of the larger open- 
>source community. It's still a big initial effort but will pay off in  
>the long run.

Yes. And the more people we support now, the sooner we will have critical mass to make things easier and more sustainable later.

If you will notice, what you and I are doing here now, is leading towards the ease you are seeking. More people who know a thing or two about this are joining in, A solution to the short term problem is starting to come together. The long term problem has not been forgotten. And what we discover here will aid with that too.


>> The distro's distribute a squeak that doesn't work.
>> That's a thing of the current. It doesn't become a thing of the past  
>> until people outside of this community act. That action presently is  
>> in the realm of vaporware or REAL-SOON-NOW.
>>
>> I have had no response to my addition to Chris's Ubuntu bug report.  
>> This indicates the future will not come soon.
>
>But heaping on workarounds does not bring the future closer.

We disagree. Partial progress always counts.

>Only working with the distribution maintainers does.

Only??? 
>
>> Meanwhile people need their software to work.
>>
>> As a developer I wish to distribute to audiences with fully  
>> functioning squeaks and etoys.
>
>I did not phrase it as a direct question in my last post, but what  
>exactly are you trying to distribute to which audience?

User story goals are of necessity a little vague. But here is a shot at your answer:

All the bug fixes I have created over the last decade. To those who wish to use squeak.

The audience for squeak are the people out there now. And the generations to come.

But only if squeak is successful in attracting their interest. Making squeak more interesting is one of the goals of my bug fixes.


<snipped and dealt with in a separate post.

Yours in curiosity and service, --Jerome Peace